Newspoll: 58-42

Newspoll has come a day early – or six days late, depending on your perspective. Key findings of the survey, which was conducted over the past two days:

• Labor’s two-party lead has blown out to 58-42 from 54-46 at the last Newspoll three weeks ago (although Peter Brent‘s “rough calculation” had it at 55-45).

• Fifty-seven per cent believe the stimulus package will be good for the economy, and 48 per cent believe it will make them personally better off. Support is inversely proportional to age.

• Labor is up five points on the primary vote to 48 per cent, with the Coalition’s down three to 36 per cent.

• Kevin Rudd’s approval rating is steady on 63 per cent, and his disapproval up one to 26 per cent.

• Malcolm Turnbull’s approval rating is down one point to 44 per cent, and his disapproval is up seven to 38 per cent.

• Sixty-three per cent believe the government is doing a good job managing the economy, and only 33 per cent believe the Coalition would do better.

Other news:

• The Greens’ parliamentary leader in New South Wales, Lee Rhiannon, has quit her Legislative Council seat and declared her intention to run for the Senate (UPDATE: Not quite – she has “informed the party that when federal elections are called, I’ll resign to stand for Federal Parliament, if I win preselection”). Brian Robins of the Sydney Morning Herald says Rhiannon “appears to be positioning herself to replace the party’s federal leader”. She may have her work cut out: the only time the Greens have won a seat in the state was when Kerry Nettle got in on One Nation preferences in 2001. Generally the problem has been that Labor are too strong in the state for the Greens to get ahead of their third candidate. Two scenarios for success suggest themselves: one involves the Greens gaining at least 5 per cent on the Coalition on the primary vote, which would raise the possibility of a result of three Labor, two Liberal, one Greens; the other is a double dissolution.

• Linda Silmalis of the Daily Telegraph reports the Coalition has been “desperate to find a high-profile candidate to take on Maxine McKew in the Sydney seat of Bennelong”, which it hopes “will be enough for Labor to consider transferring McKew to a safer seat”. It doesn’t sound like they’re having much luck: among those to have knocked back the offer are Kerry Chikarovski, former Opposition Leader and member for the locally situated state seat of Lane Cove, and Andrew Tink, former Shadow Police Minister and recent departee from state politics.

UPDATE: Essential Research has Labor’s lead at 61-39, recording no change from last week. Nothing on the stimulus package (Essential Research advises there will be a “truckload” of such data next week), but includes the usual leadership questions showing Rudd holding up and Turnbull going backwards.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

3,047 comments on “Newspoll: 58-42”

Comments Page 4 of 61
1 … 3 4 5 … 61

  2. Gary Bruce, I was hoping for 61/39 or 63/37… the two biggest 2PP polling results in the history of Rudd Labor. Or perhaps even break it.

  5. [On a two-party-preferred basis, Labor leads the Coalition 58 per cent to 42 per cent – close to its record margin just after winning the election.]
    And this after one of it’s lowest results since the election. A more than satisfying result IMHO.

  6. #151 GB
    According to an acronym finder PMSL could be Pierz Men’s Softball League, but I suspect it is the other one – “p—ed myself laughing”.

  7. I don’t think Labor should get carried away with these results – its as much a measure of the 39% dissattisfied with Turnbull as Rudd’s own success. Still it is a good result. As long as Rudd, Swann and company remain focused on doing the job, they will retain a strong lead. Passing the stimulus package this week shoudl cement their position. Like the last packafge, the full political benefit will not be appreciated till the money starts flowing. I don’t just mean the handout either. Nobody will complain when new lab and library buildings start popping up in their schools.

  8. Actually, if you have a look at the list of Newspolls from Jan 2008 to now you’ll see that that 63% and 61% stick out like sore thumbs. Outliers I would suggest.

  10. 156 triton – thanks for that. Just one thing though, isn’t “myself” one word?
    [I don’t think Labor should get carried away with these results – its as much a measure of the 39% dissattisfied with Turnbull as Rudd’s own success.]
    Soc, I’m not quite sure it makes any difference why the figures are as they are. Either way the government is doing well. I agree with the rest of your post though.

  11. 159 – Ok, Bob that may explain the 63% but it took an extraordinarily emotional issue to get that and it was still a one off. I don’t think you can expect that kind of result with this issue to be frank. You won’t get the rusted ons agreeing that a deficit is needed where emotional rusted ons gave Rudd a tick on the apology.

  13. [Julia is giving a very good and moving speech on the condolence motion.]
    Surprisingly, unlike Conroy, she didn’t start crying.

  16. #163 ShowsOn
    From the sound of it she was having to try hard not to.

    Did the Senate motion start earlier or are you somehow listening to one House in each ear?

  17. Debate over whether or not the federal budget should go into deficit pales after the events of the last few days.

    Even Turnbull seems to recognise that.

  18. Watching the politicians and the general reactions. I do wonder sometimes, how would Aust react if it has a natural disaster such the Chinese earthquake where 60,000+ died, or the Indonesian tsunami where 120,000+ died (in Indonesia only).

    btw: i am surprised that no tag has emerged for the saturday bushfire, eg: ash wednesday, black friday etc. The MSM is not doing its job.

  20. Apologies for my extended sojourn away from Poll Bludger.

    First of all, the bushfires in Victoria have resulted in a terrible loss of life to many helpless citizens. Unfortunate, sad and sobering – my condolences to all families involved.

    Secondly, today’s poll results are predictably bad for the coalition. No-one is going to do that well by denying thousands of people their $1000 lump sum payments.

  22. [Secondly, today’s poll results are predictably bad for the coalition. No-one is going to do that well by denying thousands of people their $1000 lump sum payments.]
    Or by adopting policies that will likely result in a recession.

  23. No 172

    Keeping within one’s means is not a policy likely to result in a recession.

    After all, Keynesianism caused the great depression.

  26. [Keeping within one’s means is not a policy likely to result in a recession.]
    Yes it will, particularly if a country’s major trading partners are already in recession.
    [After all, Keynesianism caused the great depression.]
    Incorrect. Protectionism did, specifically the Smoot-Hawley Act passed by a pair of Republicans, which Hoover failed to veto because of an election.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot-Hawley_Tariff_Act

  28. No 171

    The destruction is breathtaking in its magnitude. It really is so very sad – I can’t even believe some brainless imbecile thought it would be appropriate to deliberately light these fires.

  30. No 176

    ShowsOn, Hoover was a Keynesian before Keynes came to prominence. His big-government intervention, including wage fixing and restraint of competition & trade, resulted in the worst recession in US history.

    Also, according to your own darn link, Hoover went to the 1928 election supporting higher tariffs to support US farmers. It seems your obsequious deception knows no bounds.

  32. [ShowsOn, Hoover was a Keynesian before Keynes came to prominence.]
    But Hoover asked congress to LOWER tariffs, instead congress raised them.

    Logically he should’ve vetoed those increases, but instead he allowed a tariff war to break out. Which effectively doubled the cost of all imports into the U.S.
    [Also, according to your own darn link, Hoover went to the 1928 election supporting higher tariffs to support US farmers. It seems your obsequious deception knows no bounds.]
    Your adherence to a failed ideology knows no bounds.

  33. No 177

    Yes, bob. Do some reading on President Hoover. He wasn’t a free marketeer, he was a Keynesian through and through. He caused the great depression.

  34. No 182

    ShowsOn, you’re clutching at straws. Hoover still signed the bill, thereby demonstrating that he supported economy-destroying tariffs. And this was on top of the litany of interventionist policy disasters to Hoover’s name.

  35. [Yes, bob. Do some reading on President Hoover. He wasn’t a free marketeer, he was a Keynesian through and through. He caused the great depression.]
    You seem to be operating on the theory that if you repeat something often enough it becomes a fact. You can’t handle that things may be a bit more complicated than your one sided ideology.

    The problem was Hoover’s PROTECTIONISM.

  36. GP 173

    “After all, Keynesianism caused the great depression”

    You keep repeating this claim but it is still nonsense. Keynesianism did not exist as a doctrine till AFTER the depression. Keynes wrote his General Theory in 1936, as his analysis of the depression, then 7 years long. His advice was NOT acted on until the expansionary wartime budgets, which proved Keynes correct. You don’t have to like Keynesian policies, but you can’t claim they were responsible for the problem that led to their development.

    Your claims about Hoover have been disproven before too. Same tactic?

    Why do you repeat claims when they are proven false? If you repeat them loud enough, long enough and often enough Liberal party members might believe you, but the rest of us may start feeling that our intelligence is being insulted. Here’s hoping for your continued irrelevance to Australian political debate.

  37. [Your adherence to a failed ideology knows no bounds.]

    Faith in markets is what has brought the world out of poverty and increased the prosperity of millions.

    Faith in governments has merely brought about the systematic extermination of millions.

  38. [Why do you repeat claims when they are proven false?]
    Because needs to distort history so it fits with his worldview, rather than forming a worldview from the lessons of history.

    The Attorney General just said that people found guility of starting the Victorian fires could also be found guilty of conduct with “reckless criminal intent”, which could justify a murder charge.

  40. [Faith in markets is what has brought the world out of poverty and increased the prosperity of millions.]
    Again this demonstrates the way you adhere to ideas as if you are in a fundamentalist cult.

    The issue here is that SOMETIMES markets fail. This is not a general condemnation of market forces, it just says that they aren’t perfect. Just like government intervention isn’t perfect.
    [Faith in governments has merely brought about the systematic extermination of millions.]
    Yet you rely on SOME government intervention every day, from road rules, to law enforcement, to food and drug standards.

    Stop being such a fundamentalist, and figure out an argument that isn’t so hilariously simplistic.

  41. For those confused by GP’s babble, here is an article which descriebs the Great DEpression and its causes.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression

    There is still a debate over the exact cause; some say too much debt/deflation, others interest rates, others protectionism. NONE of them are stupid enough to fall for GP’s claim that it was Hoover’s spending. Even the Austrian school (right wing) think it was the money supply problem, not Hoover’s spending.

    GP which right wing moron (tautology?) came up with this meme you are repeating? I presume you are not smart enough to come up with it yourself. Most right wing politicla hacks are “cut and paste” kind of people. Like Julie Bishop 😉

  42. [Keynesianism did not exist as a doctrine till AFTER the depression. Keynes wrote his General Theory in 1936, as his analysis of the depression, then 7 years long. His advice was NOT acted on until the expansionary wartime budgets, which proved Keynes correct.]

    Socrates, Hoover significantly increased public spending during his administration. He was a Keynesian before Keynes came to prominence, so to speak.

    [Your claims about Hoover have been disproven before too.]

    Where?

    Hoover, among other things:

    -fixed wages
    -supported higher tariffs
    -restrained competition
    -did not subscribe to free-market orthodoxy

    Other people here have falsely attributed the Great Depression to Hoover’s free-market principles, when he was not a free-marketeer.

  44. “Faith in markets is what has brought the world out of poverty and increased the prosperity of millions.”

    And look what our economic “freedom” has done to those in third world countries. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer.

  45. [Socrates, Hoover significantly increased public spending during his administration.]
    So did John Howard, does that make him a Keynesian?

    Utter simplistic rubbish.
    [Other people here have falsely attributed the Great Depression to Hoover’s free-market principles, when he was not a free-marketeer.]
    It was his PROTECTIONISM. You are lumping a whole heap of unrelated things together and calling it Keysenianism. That’s nuts, and really, really funny.

  46. [And look what our economic “freedom” has done to those in third world countries. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer.]
    One reason Africa is so poor is because most of the countries there have ridiculously high tariffs.

    Compare this to China which has spent the last 30 years reducing tariffs, the result – 200 million fewer people in poverty.

    There is some truth to what G.P. says, but it is surrounded by a heap of simplistic rubbish.

  47. I think GP believes it too, but just saying it to stop us talking about how bad the Liberal Party is going at the moment. Anything for a distraction.

  49. GP

    Menzies was a Keynesian. He also did all these things you mention:

    -fixed wages
    -supported higher tariffs
    -restrained competition
    -did not subscribe to free-market orthodoxy

    Hate him too? 🙂

    You must find the wide spread rejection of your ideas frustrating these days. 🙂

  50. I wonder if GP is a real person or a pseudonym for a bunch of young liberal law students or staffers sitting around a computer trying to be clever?

    To be fair, the intellectual standard is consistent, though remembering the Howard Cabinet that could just be group-think.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 4 of 61
1 … 3 4 5 … 61